Rick_LANL wrote:This image is different (compared with, say, 10 newpix ago; haven't loaded any from overnight). After loading the pixel data into Matlab, instead of the was-black-now-gray values approaching 255, now the was-black pixels have value 3, and the background is 8. Displaying the image without scaling gives a black image, not a white one. So He changed up the data instead of just scaling the black as before, now counting upon browser properties to produce a white image.

That's probably some automated optimization. Since we only have a few shades of grey left (250-255, plus 0 for the border), the image can be (and is) stored with pixel depth 4 (allows 16 colors) instead of 8 (allows 256 colors).

Interesting. But surprising, since the border is 0 and the background is/was 255, so at 4 bits, dynamic range is lost. Doesn't matter for this image, but since I'm used to treating an image as a collection of scientific data, it seems odd to throw information away like that.

Edit (to avoid double posting): there are 9 pixel values in the image (Matlab loads it as 0,1,...,8). Border is 0, foreground is 3, background is 8, values between 3 and 8 are antialiasing at the edges, 1 and 2 are in the corners of the border.

Remember, 4 bits is 16 values, 24, more than enough for that.

Added: Ah, I think maybe I misunderstood your misunderstanding. The 16 values can be any in the range 0-255; they don't have to be evenly spaced.

P.S. I am Randall, but not that Randall.We can rebuild it. We have the technology. We can make it better than it was. Better … stronger … well, maybe not faster.Well, BlitzGirl is experiencing a bit of a title wave.

mscha wrote:That's probably some automated optimization. Since we only have a few shades of grey left (250-255, plus 0 for the border), the image can be (and is) stored with pixel depth 4 (allows 16 colors) instead of 8 (allows 256 colors).

So, how many "Shades of Grey" have we had?

Well, I checked a random newpix before the fade, and all 256 shades of grey were present. (It's in the anti-aliasing at the border of objects.)24 newpix ago, we still had 188 shades of grey. We were at #464646 back then, #464646-#ffffff is 186, plus #000000 makes 187, not sure where the 188th went.

Easier, maybe. My old eyes need more than that. I was using http://geekwagon.net/projects/xkcd1190/ and the frame comparison, but that isn't working for me this morning. Thank you to those who have posted/will post the darkened versions.

astrotter wrote:It is not particularly clear to me at this time that we are not overanalyzing this...

Randalspeed thunk, iskinner, and other blitzers! Notes from the before-was improve the after-when. Some Ways to Time

mscha wrote:Time for a sea¹ level update.This is the sea level rise since just after the trebuchet pan (exactly one month ago, Outside reckoning). There was barely any sea level rise before then, so it's pretty much the sea level rise since the Beginning of Time.

Will the next tower fall while we can still see it? You'd think, but I wouldn't bet on it, since it's been defying gravity for quite a while already.

¹: bigger than ever

If I'm not mistaken, the wall on the leftmost of this image is almost entirely under sealevel now. Weird.

Great to have you here, BlitzGirl! It was a race fitting for an action movie. I wonder who will play your role...

Greetings Gents and LadiesI have been following this comic since the beginning and lurking on the thread off and on a few times per week as well. It's been fun catching glimpses of comedy and intrigue as everyone followed this strip. I just wanted to thank the lot of you for providing a very interesting thread. I felt like I should post before everybody runs away.

Rick_LANL wrote:This image is different (compared with, say, 10 newpix ago; haven't loaded any from overnight). After loading the pixel data into Matlab, instead of the was-black-now-gray values approaching 255, now the was-black pixels have value 3, and the background is 8. Displaying the image without scaling gives a black image, not a white one. So He changed up the data instead of just scaling the black as before, now counting upon browser properties to produce a white image.

That's probably some automated optimization. Since we only have a few shades of grey left (250-255, plus 0 for the border), the image can be (and is) stored with pixel depth 4 (allows 16 colors) instead of 8 (allows 256 colors).

mscha wrote:That's probably some automated optimization. Since we only have a few shades of grey left (250-255, plus 0 for the border), the image can be (and is) stored with pixel depth 4 (allows 16 colors) instead of 8 (allows 256 colors).

So, how many "Shades of Grey" have we had?

Well, I checked a random newpix before the fade, and all 256 shades of grey were present. (It's in the anti-aliasing at the border of objects.)24 newpix ago, we still had 188 shades of grey. We were at #464646 back then, #464646-#ffffff is 186, plus #000000 makes 187, not sure where the 188th went.

The corners have that one pixel at 183/0xB7, and two at 33/0x21, each. That's why.

P.S. I am Randall, but not that Randall.We can rebuild it. We have the technology. We can make it better than it was. Better … stronger … well, maybe not faster.Well, BlitzGirl is experiencing a bit of a title wave.

Rick_LANL wrote:This image is different (compared with, say, 10 newpix ago; haven't loaded any from overnight). After loading the pixel data into Matlab, instead of the was-black-now-gray values approaching 255, now the was-black pixels have value 3, and the background is 8. Displaying the image without scaling gives a black image, not a white one. So He changed up the data instead of just scaling the black as before, now counting upon browser properties to produce a white image.

That's probably some automated optimization. Since we only have a few shades of grey left (250-255, plus 0 for the border), the image can be (and is) stored with pixel depth 4 (allows 16 colors) instead of 8 (allows 256 colors).

Interesting. But surprising, since the border is 0 and the background is/was 255, so at 4 bits, dynamic range is lost. Doesn't matter for this image, but since I'm used to treating an image as a collection of scientific data, it seems odd to throw information away like that.

Edit (to avoid double posting): there are 9 pixel values in the image (Matlab loads it as 0,1,...,8). Border is 0, foreground is 3, background is 8, values between 3 and 8 are antialiasing at the edges, 1 and 2 are in the corners of the border.

Remember, 4 bits is 16 values, 24, more than enough for that.

Added: Ah, I think maybe I misunderstood your misunderstanding. The 16 values can be any in the range 0-255; they don't have to be evenly spaced.

Indeed. I was thinking 4-bit grayscale. Matlab finally let me down; it didn't load the colormap, just the index values. It doesn't support 4-bit indexed .PNGs.

It's not fair.La Petite arriving with what looks like a trebuchet, a huge chunk of tower falling off, and we'll never see anything more.

Seriously, this is the Newpix?? I became blind, I cannot see anything and I did not find a way to gimp it to be more seeable

If you want to GIMP it yourself, the easiest way is with Colors -> Auto -> Equalize. A better result comes from Colors -> Levels, with manual intervention required, i.e. best result comes from using the colour of the not-black as the left end of the input.

Thanks to help me in the Linux way ( to mscha ), but Gimp do not allow me to click on the 'Equalize' in the colors -> auto menu, and if I click on colors -> levels, it raises an error...

I've been using msPaint, select Color 1 as the "black" colour and colour 2 as actual black, select the eraser and hold RMB and go over the image (because paint messes with pixels, you'll then want to work with colours between the "black" and the white" to see all the detail.

For instance in the last image the "black" was 250, but there are several pixels at 251() 252() 253() and 254() the crack for instance is almost entirely 253/253/253 in paint.

It's not fair.La Petite arriving with what looks like a trebuchet, a huge chunk of tower falling off, and we'll never see anything more.

Seriously, this is the Newpix?? I became blind, I cannot see anything and I did not find a way to gimp it to be more seeable

If you want to GIMP it yourself, the easiest way is with Colors -> Auto -> Equalize. A better result comes from Colors -> Levels, with manual intervention required, i.e. best result comes from using the colour of the not-black as the left end of the input.

Thanks to help me in the Linux way ( to mscha ), but Gimp do not allow me to click on the 'Equalize' in the colors -> auto menu, and if I click on colors -> levels, it raises an error...

I've been using msPaint, select Color 1 as the "black" colour and colour 2 as actual black, select the eraser and hold RMB and go over the image (because paint messes with pixels, you'll then want to work with colours between the "black" and the white" to see all the detail.

For instance in the last image the "black" was 250, but there are several pixels at 251() 252() 253() and 254() the crack for instance is almost entirely 253/253/253 in paint.

Actually, I think the problem is just that it's an indexed image now. You'll have to go Image -> Mode -> Grayscale (could do RGB, but why bother?) to convert it to something you can equalize etc. (I load it as another layer in the animated grayscale image, so it's automatically converted for me, and I forget that that might be necessary.)

P.S. I am Randall, but not that Randall.We can rebuild it. We have the technology. We can make it better than it was. Better … stronger … well, maybe not faster.Well, BlitzGirl is experiencing a bit of a title wave.

Eliram wrote:While waiting for the whiteframe, I would ask:If there is one last non-white (FEFEFE) frame, what would you, if you could control it, have displayed in it?

I thought about:- LaPetite waving and says "Bye"- The image starts to zoom out again, just a bit, to annoy us more- A hidden message with text all over the screen- The word "IT"

Any other thoughts?

If I was Randall (which I am not) I think I would do the outpan thing just to annoy us (that is always fun!) and to point out that time goes on whatever we say.Then I would have an all white page and finally a white page with IT in black. Thereby bringing OTC to some kind of logical endpoint.

Of course I would be tempted to let it loop, or to just keep DONGING out new all white newpix, but the first alternative is a bit defensive and the second just outright cruel

The past is full of traps, charms and mirages, but if you just keep up with with what you are doing it will all be fine.

P.S. I am Randall, but not that Randall.We can rebuild it. We have the technology. We can make it better than it was. Better … stronger … well, maybe not faster.Well, BlitzGirl is experiencing a bit of a title wave.

Nope, not yet. #fefefe.I haven't been able to convert this to something visible (Faststone is abandoning me in my darkest hour lightest newpix of despair), but luckily, KarMann already posted a good version.